just right for pillaging

Although summer's winding down, I have a lingering hankering for cooler climes.  That label evokes the winds of the north, which we could use down here a little.  Clean up the atmosphere a bit.

Drive your car by this guy, I dare ya

Viking Gose is a collaboration (of "Teutonic" proportions - ha!) between the German Vormann Brauerei and the Danish The Monarchy, but it says "Product of Germany" so I'm labeling it German.  The description of the brew - smoky, salty and zingy - is enticing.  Let's see if it lives up to the curiosity it piques.

When you get your nose to it, there is a definite odor of smoke, but it's delicate and you have to search for it.  There are some sharper, fruitier notes too, but they come out behind the smoke.  It's lighter than I expect smoky beers to be, but it's a pleasant, inviting color, with a nice fluffy head.  Interestingly, the flavors appear in reverse order to the smell, there being a tangy orangey taste noticeable first, with a little campfire/barbecue sliding in after.  This is a good eating beer, something that would go well with a milder tasting dish.  Some simple grilled meat or an uncomplicated pasta seem like good bets, since the flavor of the beer isn't something that should be ignored or challenged.  The smokiness gets less noticeable as the glass empties, leaving the zesty sweet citrus taste dominant.  Another reason to stay away from strong tasting foods, unless you know they go with heavy, tangy beers. 

Supplier: The Beer Garden
Price: €3.50

it's a movie star

This was my souvenir from my teacher's visit home, something authentic and useful.  Gambrinus isn't quite as famous as Pilsner Urquell, or Staropramen, but it's definitely a presence when one is in the Czech Republic.  I'll probably remember it forever as the beer prominently placed in the movie Revival.

Typical beer color, like so many Central European brews, with the prized fluffy, white head.  Same field smell as those Central European beers too, especially German ones.  Soothingly bitter, and a little tangy at the end.  Not overlaid with tons of flavors and smells, or especially strong ones, it's a pretty classic taste.  While perfectly pleasant, it's not so memorable as to conjure up a lot of visions of the past or dreams of the future, which some craftier beers do, but it can't be brushed aside either.

whiskey

Buffalo Alberts was drinking his cheap whiskey and not bothering anybody.  He was drinking cheap whiskey because he'd already had plenty of cheap beer, so the taste was basically not a consideration and the price had taken on the role of Most Important Factor.  He didn't even know what brand it was, just that it didn't seem like too many dollar bills were filtering out of his wallet, so he was satisfied and almost happy.  The bar was a little swankier than what he was used to, too, but a visit to some old friends had left him far from his usual haunts and when his head needed some washing down, there was no time to lose.  So, there he was at the bar, letting the bubbly chatter from other patrons swirl around him.  Everybody seemed to be relaxed and in a good mood, at least from the sound of their voices.  But suddenly, there was a disturbance in the force.

"You can't say that!" the voice rang out, "I demand you apologize!"  The man's voice wobbled with emotion.  Did somebody say something about his mother?  Buffalo turned lazily on the swivel bar stool to get a load of the action.  A tall man in rather preppy clothes was on his feet next to a table near the wall.  Two women were still seated, across from one another, with startled, deer-in-the-headlights faces.  There was a chair just behind the standing man, so Buffalo surmised that he had been sitting with them until that moment.  "Well?" he shrieked, his voice getting higher and more unpleasant.  One of the women reached out and motioned for him to sit down while the other said something, but since she was using her inside voice, what she said couldn't be heard at the bar.  Buffalo frowned.  Not much entertainment.  The man slowly sat down, shaking his head but also using his inside voice now, and that seemed to be that.  Buffalo turned back to his whiskey and studied the future at the bottom of the glass.

Time passes differently inside a bar than outside, so it seemed like it was both a long time and almost immediately that the next shout went up.

"I don't get it!  You have to explain!"  A fist crashing onto the table emphasized the need for further information.  The whole bar focused its attention on the table near the wall, where one of the women was looking mildly irritated now and the other was blushing with embarrassment.  The preppy man was also red faced, but with anger probably, and after his table thump he pointed an accusing finger at the irritated woman's face practically wailed, "You aren't explaining!  Jokes aren't funny unless you explain!"  Now she responded at the same volume.

"Jesus Christ, George, jokes aren't funny if you explain them!  Just forget it, for fuck's sake!"

The man leaped to his feet again, knocking over the chair behind him.  "I know what you do in your living room!  You give yourself orgasms with your raincoat!"

What the tittyshits was that?  Was Buffalo hallucinating this argument?  He stared down at the nearly empty glass and then let his eye wander clumsily around the room.  Well, everybody else was staring at them too.  At least something was really going on.  Both the women were now staring incredulously at the man, while he waved his right arm in their direction and shouted again, "Isn't it true?  And you keep lions to breed with your cats!  Perverts!  Frankensteins!"

Disbelief had visibly spread to the entire bar.  Buffalo glanced around, thinking a hidden camera had to be filming somewhere, but none was obvious to his drunken eye.  The women's gazes had moved to each other and away from the man, and his loud reaction pulled Buffalo's gaze back to the table as well.  "You can't ignore me!" he screamed, "I'll educate you!"  At this the women stood up brusquely and, grabbing their purses, stalked off towards the restrooms.  The man was frozen for a moment, but then he whirled and lurched after them, emitting almost word-like yodels.  Mouths were open in astonishment at every table and Buffalo wanted to applaud the performance.  He restrained himself, however, reasoning through his alcohol buffered haze that the appearance of belief in the seriousness of the situation was desired by the filmmakers.  Who was he to spoil somebody's project?

The man did not tempt fate by entering the ladies' room, instead returning calmly to the table and sitting down as if nothing had happened.  A waiter nervously approached and mumbled something with knitted brow, but the man laughed and waved him away.  Minutes passed, this time for sure.  Buffalo looked expectantly towards the restrooms, but the women didn't reappear.  Sighing, he raised his glass to his mouth and was startled to see the clear bottom untinted by brown liquor.  He reached for his wallet, grumbling, and spat in disgust when he saw it was empty.

"Yes, I think you've had enough, sir," snapped the bartender with stern disapproval.

"Yep, well, I guess I'm glad ya charged for every drink when I got it," drawled Buffalo, secretly sincerely thankful that he had.  He was in no shape to wash dishes to pay off a tab and if there was one thing he didn't need these days, it was an encounter with the police.  "My cue to leave," he sighed and hopped off the stool.

He tried to amble out as nonchalantly as possible, but had to stop and observe a man in a suit come up to the table near the wall.  Maybe the owner.  He said something and the tall man looked shocked.  Then the anger returned, almost creating a visible aura of rage around the preppy polo shirt and he howled, "That's not fair!  I can't leave before they touch my penis!  All the prostitutes in here have to touch my penis!"  He swept the room of newly startled patrons with his arm, and the exasperated owner nodded towards the bartender, who pulled out a cell phone.  Yep, definitely time for Buffalo to move on.

He glided out into the hot parking lot, still steaming in the dimness of the summer night.  He was startled by two silhouettes coming around the corner of the bar, presumably from where the restroom windows were, and as they passed him he caught the muttered words "motherfucking restraining order".  The women looked awfully casual to be prostitutes.  Maybe they were specialist escorts, girl-next-door types.  In any case, Buffalo Alberts was reminded of a phrase he'd heard could be used to caption every New Yorker cartoon ever and he couldn't help but say it, solemnly, aloud:

"Christ, what an asshole."

Then he moved off semi-steadily, cackling to himself at others' misfortunes.

we all know one

Although a lot of craft beers are staunchly bottle served, there is an argument to be made for the cans.  It's an argument that depends on the beers being transported over large distances, but those beer stores are full of brews from all over.  The thing about the bottle, besides being a good insulator and reusable or recyclable, is it's heavy.  Glass tends to have some heft.  Aluminum cans, on the other hand, don't add much weight to the beer being shipped.  Less weight means less pressure on the vehicle and less fuel used to move it along.  A warm can also cools down faster than a warm bottle, although the reverse is also true.  So anyway, the American import store stay open all August, so it's a little easier to snag something there than keep a close eye on the clock every day.  And they do have some interesting selections, Barking Squirrel Lager, for example.

Yeah, not an acorn

It's an interesting orangey color, a little heavy on the sweetness in the aroma.  Not too sweet a flavor, though, perhaps a little honey.  There's also a hint of bitter, but very little.  A fine, mild lager, easy going down, but with just enough complexity to be noticeable.  A little aftertaste pools at the back of the tongue, but nothing too heavy.  The temperatures have thankfully dropped a little, so the lack of ale bitterness and craft ale citrus is not a big loss, unless that's what you're particularly craving.

Supplier: Taste of America
Price: €1.85

Race as a Social Concept

One might wonder what could be social about race.  After all, there are obvious physical differences between people with different geographical origins (or whose ancestors had different origins) and anthropologists and forensic scientists tell us those origins can be determined by examination of bone structures.  Even DNA analysis can show some markers present in some human populations but not others.  We can all agree that humans have different groups.  Still, the question remains: what does it mean to say a person belongs to a specific "race"?  Some would tell us the physical differences are evolutionary adaptations to different climate features, which in some cases seems to be perfectly justified.  People who have lived in areas of high altitude over many generations can be found to have larger hearts than normal, which we assume is to pump blood more efficiently with less oxygen in the air, for example.  But these things are not immediately obvious at first glance, and we do divide people into groups as soon as we see them.  How do we identify each race, how many are there, and why is it even necessary?  Some people insist that there are physical characteristics that can be easily seen or measured which put each person in his or her proper catagory.  While a popular idea in the past, it has become somewhat less acceptable these days.  We rely mostly on skin tone, eye shape, and to some extent self-identification to apply racial labels at present.  The difficulty is that people have moved around all over the world.  Very few populations have not had contact with others, over centuries and millenia, and this contact has naturally lead to a certain amount of mixing, one way or another.  The common wisdom of the day is that all humans have ancestors in Africa, and all humans out of Africa have ancestors that were hominids besides homo sapiens.  Although travel and communications seem to make it more likely that we would have interracial or intercultural relationships today than in the past, it is really a old tradition.  Some modern societies, not to mention some ancient ones, have gathered people from many areas of the world, creating what we like to call today "melting pots".  It is, of course, not really true, but it is a nice idea.  Segregationists like to shout that everyone, including the "lesser" races, likes to be among similar people, and it is observably true.  Is this the main reason for our interest in identifying race in others?  Do we have some deep-seated need to keep ourselves away from people with some fundamental difference from ourselves? If we live in the same society, we should have the same culture: the same values; the same manners; the same basic presonal goals.  What are the differences if not visual and superficial?  Should they be given such importance?

As I stated previously, the melting pot does not exist in the way we like to imagine it, especially in countries like the USA.  People from different cultures do try to maintain at least some aspects of their original societies while they adapt to the new one, and pass these traditions to their children who are otherwise full members of the new society.  It becomes a matter of pride to celebrate one's history, shared with others, that makes your group stand out from the crowd.  In the USA they are "hyphenated Americans", a term which has seen its share of both proud acceptance and disdainful ridicule, depending on what comes before the hyphen.  Now we come to social attitudes toward race.  The idea has changed over time, becoming much more inclusive in the present than in the past, when many more groups were discriminated against by a smaller group of "better" people.  Even some people with white skin, generally considered the best you can have in modern times in the West, were not considered really white.  Just ask the Irish.  Ashkenazim can also attest to their skin color not helping them particularly.  Part of this discrimination can be attached to religion, as Catholics and Jews have some customs not enjoyed by the dominant Protestant culture of North and West Europe and the corresponding colonies.  It is true that some societies have promoted and even insisted on particular religions, but can religion truly be a part of race?  If one converts, does one also change race?  Are Yusuf Islam and Everlast Middle Eastern now that they are Muslims?  Those who pay close attention to history may observe that Christianity is also fundamentally a Middle Eastern religion, having been evangelized throughout Europe to the detriment of the previous faiths.  Now, all kidding aside, there are recognized sub-cultures that are often divided along racial lines, partially because of ancestral cultures, and partially because of culture developed in response to discrimination.  The question remains, though, is racial difference a fundamental biological truth, or is it based mostly on social attitudes?

Most people identify themselves with a particular racial group.  This is based on what their parents considered themselves to be, sometimes with a little input from outsiders.  Non-whites in the past could "pass" as the respectable race if there had been a fortuitous construction of features, due to mixing.  Now, there is more pressure to be proud of whatever race one identifies with, and celebrate the achievements of all members of society, with special focus on minorities.  Some say that this only encourages racial separatism, rather than social unity.  Others argue that it is justice for past wrongs.  We have had a history of cultural appropriation without due recognition, which is probably why the response to people like Rachel Dolezal
is so often negative.  We can understand people from the lower rungs reaching for something good from above, but a member of the privileged class stooping to identify herself with the lowly seems more like patronization than genuine respect and identification.  The general consensus is that there must be some genetic connection to culture for a race to be claimed by and individual.  Yet, there are examples of culture being the overriding requirement and "race" being less important for acceptance.  The Wampanoag have been described as accepting any individual who agreed to live as one of them and follow their customs, regardless of racial or ethnic origin.  More than one religion has tried to take on this role of cultural leveller as well.

At this point, it looks like race is just a convenient divider of members of society into castes, each with its own financial, educational, and personal opportunities.  If we want our societies to be unified and strong, to support our nation-states, or the world as a whole, we should look at other people as people before we attach labels that we consider appropriate because of non-elective aspects of physical appearance.  We want to be with people who are like us - who share our culture - but if the only thing we have in common, or the only characteristic we take into account, is a similar skin hue or eye color, it seems as if we have no culture.  Differences between individuals and populations exist, but is the label race useful anymore?  Was it ever?

Our Doctor made the sage observation that it is good to discover our own silliness.  This time, the silly thing is not knowing what race is, although we act as if we do.  In fact, the term might not be as fitting as "ethnicity" for what we mean to discuss, as we are not limited to mere biological markers, but also must keep cultural attitudes in mind.  As a medical professional, he was naturally aware of the tendencies that appear in the health and health problems of different groups, and also brought religion into the discussion using the Jewish people as an example: they in fact are composed of many "races", but hold the same attitudes as a people.  As for the question of racial conflict, he felt big powers were at work in the background.  He also noted the gypsy culture of Europe and the difficulties there have been on all sides to eliminate discrimination and mutual disdain and suspicion.  Every location, he said in closing, has its own culture and we have to know who our friends are, but by who they are, not what they look like.

The True Philosopher wrote of the use of race as a tool for social division and stratification, continuing this line of thought in the meeting.  The terms used for different races have changed with time in many countries, and in his opinion, this is mainly driven by colonization and imperialism, which introduce more "successful" and more powerful people to a society.  These new leaders take on a role of "best people" which others try to follow, or openly reject in an attempt to solidify their own identity.

The Leader scoffed at the notion of racial distinctions in his article, reiterating in the meeting that the standard considerations - physical appearance and some suppositions of mental capacity - are simply ridiculous.  Superficial differences can never be important enough to be allowed to determine these categories of humanity.  Focusing on one difference leads us to look for more, and to seek out ways to make ourselves superior in our differences to others.  Even pointing out race as a way of making a point is just an excuse to cause trouble.  He insisted that people are too different between each other as individuals to make satisfactory groups in a scientific manner, and again, those differences that can be shown to occur in a grouping fashion are, so to speak, only skin deep.  The real problem with paying attention to race and racial characteristics is the stratification of society it leads to, with the corresponding denial of opportunity to some and abundance of it to others for no reason other than a passing glance and a stereotype based on our ancestors' imaginations or manipulation.

The Seeker of Happiness remarked on the division represented by different racism as the typical "us vs. them" attitude found in people.  We always divide ourselves into groups, begging for admission to one and rejecting others from our own, but problems arise when the criteria for division are not fair.  Once we have organized ourselves into categories of people, we then allow competition between the groups, which can lead to attempts to make our group look better than others, even the dehumanizing of members of other groups.  Furthermore, we claim kinship with famous or respected people of the past, insisting that their characteristics, which are similar to ours, are marks of greatness.  If we share those characteristics, we must have the possibility of greatness.  Some take it even further, believing that they are inherently great because of those arbitrary characteristics, not because of any achievements they have.

In general, we seemed to want to reject any necessary unfairness in racial identification, perhaps because of the pushes for multiculturalism and tolerance in recent decades.  In spite of our social advances, however, we may err on the side of superficiality and ignorance if we ignore the fact that discrimination was encouraged in the past.  The world does not start from zero every morning, not for anyone.  No decisions made yesterday, or 100 years ago, cease to have an effect just because the Earth has turned completely on its axis.  As has been examined in other meetings, the past can be thought of as eternally present in us.

from the great white north

It's still a little strange to me that the import store has beer, and some of the more well-known craft brands - Anchor, Samuel Adams, Flying Dog all make appearances.  OK, Budweiser's in there too.  And a couple of Canadian contenders, like Clancy's Amber Ale.  Ale always sounds about right this time of year, so why not?

There's a puff of beery smell as soon as the cap comes off, but no other fanfare and it dissipates rapidly.  It's awfully light and clear for an amber ale, and on the heady side.  The beer in the glass smells more heavily perfumed than when it's just in the bottle, and sweeter.  More like most amber ales, I guess.  The taste is sweet, although not too much, and it's a simple, uncomplicated sweetness.  No touches of cinnamon or citrus, no bitterness hiding in the background.  I find it a little syrupy, and not something I would prefer to have all on its own.  Some spicy pretzels sound really nice right now, actually.  To the import store!

Supplier: Taste of America
Price: €1.95

Ownership

On the surface this seems like a simple enough concept.  When one owns something, one has ownership.  That something is a possession, it belongs to a person or entity.  If in the condition to make any sort of decisions, it is not ultimately responsible for itself, as some higher power is theoretically involved to guide or control it.  Yet, my impression is that it is not actually that simple.  We focus for the most part on the benefits of ownership, principally the fact that we are generally allowed to do whatever we want with what we own.  Sure, people may protest or make their disagreement known, but they cannot stop us from painting our cars loud colors, burning our old comics books (depending on fire regulations in the area) or smashing our old electronics.  We own those things.  They belong to us.  We are allowed to do anything, as long as we do not affect other people to any great extent.  And, therein lies the key: how we affect others determines how much we can exercise our rights as owners.  We have responsibilities as well as rights when something belongs to us, especially when those things have particularly dangerous consequences of use or misuse, such as in the case of vehicles or weapons.  I may have the right to fire the gun I own, but if a stray bullet injures somebody or damages another person's property I am responsible for that damage.  Ownership of inanimate objects is now becoming a tricky, what with all the possible charges of negligence looming, but there are still more considerations in terms of ownership.

In recent years, much has been made of intellectual property and the rights that creators have over their creation and the financial gain made from it.  This has mostly been in terms of music, but writers and artists have also had their fair share of problems and things to say on the subject.  All of these things - a song, a story, an image - can be created as digital files and stored or let loose on the internet, where they will undoubtedly be "stolen".  To some extent, these things cannot really be stolen, because making a copy of them is not preventing anyone else from having them.  However, it is true that making illegal or illicit copies deprives the creator of the financial reward for creating in the first place.  In that sense, internet pirates are stealing from the pockets of musicians and a great many people are stealing from artists who create their works on digital media.  How can we lay claim to the ownership of these digital files?  There are watermarks for photos, tricks to prevent playback of soundfiles, but do any of these measures really show the web surfer the proof of ownership?  Because these things are non-tangible, it is that much easier to simply claim that they belong to anyone who can find an access to them, legal or illegal.  We see enjoyment of an item as the purpose as consumers, and the purpose of creating wealth as secondary or non-existent.  Therefore, those artists that complain about missing out on income seem to be complaining about something that they have no right to.  The work itself has no physical properties, so it is easy to dismiss it as something "easy" to do and without effort behind it, at least effort that carries the weight of deserving recognition and reward.  What does "ownership" mean in these cases?  How can people push for their just recompense for effort expended?

Another problematic aspect of ownership is how it gets applied to living things.  In many cases, we are understanding, as gardens, plants and even pets are seen as under the dominion of a human master.  We might be understanding with non-living objects, but living beings attract much more attention and noise when they are treated in ways that are not widely accepted.  We understand that pets are "owned" but we also are not happy when they are neglected or abused.  Even farm animals, outside the realm of romanticized pet ownership, are the objects of pity and righteous fury when rescued from abusive situations.  Living things are not so easily brushed aside when we believe we are conscientious.  There are organizations, sometimes more than one, that look out for the well-being of animals, whether in a household or on a farm, and the ownership of these animals does not give the owners leave to do whatever they want with them.  When living beings are involved, the responsibilities of ownership become more obvious.  True, some prefer not to use the word "own" when it comes to the relationship between a person and a pet, or even livestock, since the animal is considered to have consciousness and a will of its own, so its dignity should be respected.  There is also some confusion regarding being responsible for other human beings and owning them.  In much of the world, slavery is no longer legal or thought of as a good or even neutral activity, but that does not prevent people from feeling a sense of ownership over others, especially children and romantic partners.  The possessiveness of these interpersonal relationships can lead people to confusion over their exact nature.  "My child", "my spouse", "my house".  Children especially can be confused with extensions of the parents, due to the physical part parents play in their creation and the dependence the children have on their progenitors for so long.  Social and cultural norms have promoted this idea to greater and lesser extents, mostly as strategies to ensure the supply of new citizens who will not demand much care from society at large, since the family unit is expected to take care of its own.  Still, the problem of ownership seems to be one of individual circumstances, which define the balancing act that must take place in order for us to enjoy our privileges and satisfy our responsibilities.

Our Doctor began by recognizing the difficulty of the concept of ownership for Spanish speakers, since the term does not exist in their language.  There is a definite difference between ownership and property, but it requires a little more reflection than many people are used to.  He rolled through recent history and cultural attitudes to private property, reminding us of the problems the quest for such things, especially ownership without the responsibilities, can cause problems for society and citizens.  There have been many attempts to correct the inequalities through redistribution of resources and also through attitude adjustments that reject private property altogether.  He later stated that ownership is a problem of morality, but also amoral.  There is no morality attached to merely holding the deed or title to an object, but there is in recognizing the validity of what that paper says.  If people are not free, they cannot be owners of anything, even their own bodies and lives.  We are not citizens even today, but subjects, and subjects of shadow leaders who we do not know.  He concluded that we need to know reality in order to be free, to be responsible and to be people, but nobody actually knows what it is.

The True Philosopher was unable to produce an article for us this time, but was present and with thoughts to share.  He acknowledged that we use the term to refer to many possessions - jewelry, dogs - but only some of those possessions require documentation.  Nobody will argue if you claim a pen as your own (unless you steal it on camera, perhaps), but land generally requires some officially recognized deed that gives you rights over it.  There may be implied ownership over living beings, but this is simply a convention of language and not genuine expression of possession in the majority of cases.  Furthermore, can we say that everything we possess is owned by us?  In the past, we required less paperwork for recognition of property rights, especially in small communities where people knew each other and each other's families for generations.  There was a natural and expected inheritance of land and property that did not require the intervention and permission of government representatives, because the community as a whole recognized the property as belonging to certain people by rights.  This was traditional in the Philippines until the Church came along and claimed the "free" property, but allowed tenant farmers to continue using it as if it were their "own".  The community might give ownership to one person, but the authorities give it to another.  This is one of the problems surrounding the concept, as it is a personal state and depends on others to give it form in reality.  Disagreements are many and can end in violence and destruction.

The Leader spent a bit of time in his writing on the accumulation of resources and the balance of that accumulation and pro-social behavior.  He continued the theme in the meeting.  For him, the owning of people could not be compared to the owning of objects or land because of the relationships we have with others, but in societies where slavery is/was common, those interpersonal relationships certainly existed but were developed only between the "right" people.  People in modern Western societies with a sense of ownership over others obviously have no respect for them.  He also mentioned the difficulties faced by those who produce non-tangible property, such as images on the internet, or services versus goods.  The stability of our modern society depends a great deal on the sense of dedication to protection of property and the expectation that we can all achieve some measure of ownership over some of it.  If we respect others' property, they will respect ours.  The more important question for the Leader was protecting the value of the property, in particular real estate, not the physical property itself, as in the case of property bubbles.  Being an owner is, or should, never be an individual endeavor as it is meaningless outside of a society and requires the support of society to continue.  As for some wonderings on why we wish to accumulate property if it carries so much responsibility, or where the urge comes from at all, he answered that the reasons were many.  We act out of sentimentality, search for security, or greed.  In the end, though, the urge to collect is natural to the human being.

The Seeker of Happiness did not agree with any connection to nature regarding the concept of ownership or property.  He flatly stated that property did not exist in nature, which is true in the sense of responsibility towards personal property.  There is a sense of territory, but not a sense of care for it beyond keeping competitors away.  While the idea of personal property can seem unfair, he said, the belief in something as one's own encourages care for it and protection from damage.  Still, there is a danger in monopolies and the corruption that they tend to encourage.  For some reason, we do not count government as a monopoly, but as a responsible provider of services, except the most libertarian or anarchistic of us.  It is also true that the power of large properties, when properly managed, confers the power to carry out large projects that would otherwise be unattainable.

Finally, an Drop-In openly admitted that he did not understand the concept of ownership, so he elected to instead regale us with an anecdote of a "girl" he knew who had acquired a number of properties in Madrid, but all she ever did was work.  It was left unclear whether we the audience were supposed to admire her acquisitive ambitions or pity her inconsequential life.  He also said that the government is a necessary overseer to make sure we assume the responsibilities of ownership (to return to topic) and keep unrest to a minimum with pie-in-the-sky promises or carrot-and-stick (mostly stick) methods of controlling the ambitions and actions of the people.  Yet, he ended with some doubt about where wealth really comes from in modern society.

Perhaps, as members of less privileged classes, we are not equipped to speak on the topic of ownership.  Few of us own anything of great wealth or possibility to speak of.

summer for sure

It's actually more tolerable these days than a couple of weeks ago, but it's still undoubtedly summer.  Another Catalan small brewery provided a summer ale, Marina Summer Ale, to the beer stores, which seemed like the best thing for a tasting.

Hello, I'm topped up

It has a pleasing, light yellow color, a bit opaque, with a white but thin head.  The smell is clearly sweet and bitter at once, promising a refreshing and tasty summer drink.  It's more bitter at first when you take a sip, but the sweetness comes out once you're ready to swallow.  There's a touch of lemoniness that doesn't take away from the obvious beer being, but makes it a lighter and more laid-back drink.  One for hot summer evenings, nicely set off by some salty snack.

Careful with the sediment

I expect drooly, whiny comments based on this photo because some people have no self-control, or common sense

Supplier: Prost Chamberí
Price: €3.10